Crash button consequences
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My first flight in a Kitfox was following many hours flying a Pitts S2A and numerous other taildraggers, all without concern or worry. The Kitfox (it was an early one) was in many ways more difficult on the ground than most other aircraft that I had flown. It required great care. I guess a tricycle U/C would be a vast improvement.
I flew a MK2 some time later, and it was an improvement but not to the point that I would confidently fly it in most winds without concern.
I flew a MK2 some time later, and it was an improvement but not to the point that I would confidently fly it in most winds without concern.
G
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 32°55'22"S 151°46'56"E
Age: 39
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Well, I suspect some Ego's are at play, and a little bruised. It's something you should take on the chin.
Although, if you start to find the whole world is telling you that you are wrong, it would be time to question yourself.
To be honest there is too little information to make an informed comment on the actual scenario.
Although, if you start to find the whole world is telling you that you are wrong, it would be time to question yourself.
To be honest there is too little information to make an informed comment on the actual scenario.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: EU
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't see the issues here.
PIC didn't indicate there was a problem, and there wasn't because he greased it. Good job.
Controller was being safe putting fire vehicles on standby. Nothing wrong with being safe. Good job.
PIC didn't indicate there was a problem, and there wasn't because he greased it. Good job.
Controller was being safe putting fire vehicles on standby. Nothing wrong with being safe. Good job.
Not quite. I'm sure GtE has the details, but for certification purposes the test pilots are required to demonstrate that the aircraft can safely be landed, by an average pilot, with a crosswind that is a certain percentage of the stall speed in the landing configuration. I think the percentage is 50, but I'm not sure.
Once that demonstration has been done, that certification point has passed and the test pilots can move on to other things. There is no need or incentive for them to prove that the aircraft can be landed safely at higher crosswinds.
Once that demonstration has been done, that certification point has passed and the test pilots can move on to other things. There is no need or incentive for them to prove that the aircraft can be landed safely at higher crosswinds.
In practice what we tend to do in a certification programme is monitor the crosswinds (and if necessary make sure we increase what we fly in in smallish stages) and then grab opportunities to explore crosswind limits when they present themselves. You want a reasonably high and sensible number, but only twice can I remember having to go back and do a separate crosswind limits trial, and both of those were military training aeroplanes where the rules are a little different.
Which reminds me of a story I've not told for a few years. Picture the scene - I was managing a crosswind limits trial for a military trainer out of a certain airfield in Wiltshire. Dressed as I normally do in the office - smart business suit and a fairly distinctive tie, I went up to the tower to brief the controller on what information we wanted from the threshold anemometers, then went off and changed into flying kit, briefed the sortie, and strapped into the right hand seat with a certain nowadays very senior Test Pilot who at the time went by the callsign "Gauntlet 80".
Taxiing out, we had a call from the Tower...
"Gauntlet 80 - Tower"
"Tower, 80, go"
"Gauntlet 80, we've just had your boffin up here and he wants all these numbers written down. Do you actually want this stuff?"
(brief pause)
"Hang on, he's just here, I'll ask him"
- Most punchy ATC I can ever recall at BDN after that little conversation!
G
Thread Starter
A lot of the expected replies as usual with I think Airpolice being the most square on the head so to speak.
The AFS were placed on standby so the title was indeed somewhat misleading.
The CAA were informed by the disgruntled FI due to his failure in previous unsubstantiated detrimental claims/actions aimed at one of the persons in the plane specifically and the Club in general.
There certainly are egos in play but not so much in the aircraft.
ATC/AFS did their job without any fuss and it only became an issue when a fireman/refueller mentioned it to the aforementioned FI who obviously decided that this could be yet another pinprick of annoyance.
Some people want to fly and some don't want anybody other than themselves to fly.
The AFS were placed on standby so the title was indeed somewhat misleading.
The CAA were informed by the disgruntled FI due to his failure in previous unsubstantiated detrimental claims/actions aimed at one of the persons in the plane specifically and the Club in general.
There certainly are egos in play but not so much in the aircraft.
ATC/AFS did their job without any fuss and it only became an issue when a fireman/refueller mentioned it to the aforementioned FI who obviously decided that this could be yet another pinprick of annoyance.
Some people want to fly and some don't want anybody other than themselves to fly.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 75
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Depressurisation and Emergency Declaration
Mad Jock doesn't say if any passengers were involved in his door seal blowout. In a previous life, I was involved in a few emergencies involving returning passenger aircraft due to depressurisation - we had a first-hand account from one of these as a member of our staff was on board, genuine 'rubber jungle' job.
Now, with the first couple of these (funny, isn't it, how you get a run of similar incidents, then nothing at all on that subject for years?) an Emergency was declared by the crew, then cancelled by the crew as they got safely down below 10,000'. This meant that ATC stood everybody down, including the local ambulance service. Now, the flight that my colleague was on, when it got to the gate, many pax were in a lot of pain, blood coming out of ears etc and so ambulances had to be re-called, some delay in treatment as they'd all gone away. There was a major revision to Emergency Orders to state that if there was an inbound a/c that had previously declared an emergency for depressurisation, then cancelled it, the Full Emergency status would remain in force until the medical authorities were satisfied that none of the pax (or crew!) required treatment.
For some reason of ego, or whatever, some crews objected to the presence of the Emergency Services anywhere near their a/c. At my previous place of employment, the RFFS vehicles would turn out purely as an exercise and follow a random a/c to stand, to practice how to correctly deploy around different types.
Weather Standby is an SOP and can simply be triggered by the W/V going over certain pre-determined limits, regardless of actual aircraft types operating.
The Odd One
Now, with the first couple of these (funny, isn't it, how you get a run of similar incidents, then nothing at all on that subject for years?) an Emergency was declared by the crew, then cancelled by the crew as they got safely down below 10,000'. This meant that ATC stood everybody down, including the local ambulance service. Now, the flight that my colleague was on, when it got to the gate, many pax were in a lot of pain, blood coming out of ears etc and so ambulances had to be re-called, some delay in treatment as they'd all gone away. There was a major revision to Emergency Orders to state that if there was an inbound a/c that had previously declared an emergency for depressurisation, then cancelled it, the Full Emergency status would remain in force until the medical authorities were satisfied that none of the pax (or crew!) required treatment.
For some reason of ego, or whatever, some crews objected to the presence of the Emergency Services anywhere near their a/c. At my previous place of employment, the RFFS vehicles would turn out purely as an exercise and follow a random a/c to stand, to practice how to correctly deploy around different types.
Weather Standby is an SOP and can simply be triggered by the W/V going over certain pre-determined limits, regardless of actual aircraft types operating.
The Odd One
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where I'm based just reporting a problem gets Trumpton rushing out, and I'm really rather glad about it, having reported a generator failure I was taxiing in with AFS in attendance when the engine concerned decided to have a hysterical fit and catch fire. They are also there when we have hot brake problems, and at any time a pilot or controller thinks they might be needed, they also throw a great summer BBQ and a superb training course on fires for pilots where you get to don the kit and actually go, with them into a fire they set and put it out.
If the instructor in this thread has contacted the CAA then he may find himself being asked a lot of questions, by both the CAA and his employers. In an economy like ours p*#Ģing off a pilot who may hire from you, or at least use your school for training is a bit like placing one foot over the other and shooting through both.
The controller/AFISO/AG operator, whatever was right. If there's going to be an uncomfortable incident then having the fire crew part way there is a bonus to my mind.
We've all read reports of aircraft crashes on airfields where pilots or pax were horribly burned before AFS could get there, it's not a way I want to end a days flying, either at work or in my own aeroplane.
SND
If the instructor in this thread has contacted the CAA then he may find himself being asked a lot of questions, by both the CAA and his employers. In an economy like ours p*#Ģing off a pilot who may hire from you, or at least use your school for training is a bit like placing one foot over the other and shooting through both.
The controller/AFISO/AG operator, whatever was right. If there's going to be an uncomfortable incident then having the fire crew part way there is a bonus to my mind.
We've all read reports of aircraft crashes on airfields where pilots or pax were horribly burned before AFS could get there, it's not a way I want to end a days flying, either at work or in my own aeroplane.
SND
